Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38345710›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024

Travoprost Intracameral Implant for Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: 12-Month Results of a Randomized, Double-Masked Trial.

Steven R Sarkisian, Robert E Ang, Andy M Lee, John P Berdahl, Sebastian B Heersink, James H Burden, Long V Doan, Kerry G Stephens, David Applegate, Angela C Kothe and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03519386 (Prospective, Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Two Models of a Travoprost Intraocular Implant to Timolol Maleate Ophthalmic Solution, 0.5%), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
12.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03519386 phase3completednot on this map

Prospective, Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Two Models of a Travoprost Intraocular Implant to Timolol Maleate Ophthalmic Solution, 0.5%

TypeinterventionalSponsorGlaukos CorporationRan2018 to 2024Enrolled590ConditionsGlaucoma, Open-Angle, Ocular HypertensionArmsG2-TR intraocular implant containing travoprost, Sham surgery + active-comparator eye drops
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: Is It Here to Stay?Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Steven R SarkisianOklahoma Eye Surgeons, PLLC, 5600 N Portland Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK, 73112, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7633-2720
Robert E AngAsian Eye Institute, 8th to 10th Floor, Rockwell Center, PHINMA Plaza Building, 01200, Makati City, Philippines.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5035-2923
Andy M LeeTotal Eye Care, 388 E. Hwy 67, Duncanville, TX, 75137, USA.
John P BerdahlVance Thompson Vision, 3101 West 57th Street, Sioux Falls, SD, 57108, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5468-7405
Sebastian B HeersinkEye Center South, DBA Trinity Research Group, 2800 Ross Clark Circle, Dothan, AL, 36301, USA.
James H BurdenSkyline Vision Clinic and Laser Center, 3155 North Union Boulevard, Colorado Springs, CO, 80907, USA.
Long V DoanGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-0572-2236
Kerry G StephensGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA.
David ApplegateGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA.
Angela C KotheGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-7971-5292
Dale W UsnerGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2799-0652
L Jay KatzGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA.
Tomas NavratilGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA. tnavratil@glaukos.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3577-3096
Glaukos (United States) · USAsian Eye Institute · PHNorthwest Eye Surgeons · USTotal Rehab · USVance Thompson Vision · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked pivotal phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the travoprost intracameral SE-implant (slow-eluting implant, the intended commercial product) and FE-implant (fast-eluting implant, included primarily for masking purposes) compared to twice-daily (BID) timolol ophthalmic solution, 0.5% in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).

methodsThe trial enrolled adult patients with OAG or OHT with an unmedicated mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) of ≥ 21 and unmedicated IOP ≤ 36 mmHg at each diurnal timepoint (8 A.M., 10 A.M., and 4 P.M.) at baseline. The eligible eye of each patient was administered an SE-implant, an FE-implant or had a sham administration procedure. Patients who received an implant were provided placebo eye drops to be administered BID and patients who had the sham procedure were provided timolol eye drops to be administered BID. The primary efficacy endpoint, for which the study was powered, was mean change from baseline IOP at 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. at day 10, week 6, and month 3. Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in IOP change from baseline (implant minus timolol) was < 1.5 mmHg at all six timepoints and < 1 mmHg at three or more timepoints. The key secondary endpoint was mean change from baseline IOP at 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. at month 12. Non-inferiority at month 12 was achieved if the upper 95% CI was < 1.5 mmHg at both timepoints. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ophthalmic assessments.

resultsA total of 590 patients were enrolled at 45 sites and randomized to one of three treatment groups: 197 SE-implant (the intended commercial product), 200 FE-implant, and 193 timolol. The SE-implant was non-inferior to timolol eye drops in IOP lowering over the first 3 months, and was also non-inferior to timolol at months 6, 9, and 12. The FE-implant was non-inferior to timolol over the first 3 months, and also at months 6 and 9. Of those patients who were on glaucoma medication at screening, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the SE- and FE-implant groups (83.5% and 78.7%, respectively) compared to the timolol group (23.9%) were on fewer topical glaucoma medications at month 12 compared to screening (P < 0.0001, chi-square test). TEAEs, mostly mild, were reported in the study eyes of 39.5% of patients in the SE-implant group, 34.0% of patients in the FE-implant group and 20.1% of patients in the timolol group.

conclusionsThe SE-travoprost intracameral implant demonstrated non-inferiority to timolol over 12 months whereas the FE-implant demonstrated non-inferiority over 9 months. Both implant models were safe and effective in IOP lowering in patients with OAG or OHT.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03519386.

Indexed as

iDose® TRIntraocular pressureOcular drug delivery systemOcular hypertensionOpen-angle glaucomaTravoprost intracameral implant

Identifiers

PMID38345710
PMCPMC10912401
OpenAlexW4391751142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.